figma_list_slides

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file-type restriction and what fields come back, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, cost, or what happens when the open file is not a Slides file (empty list vs error).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and result shape, followed immediately by the hard constraint. No redundant restating of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, grid positions, skip status), which is exactly the missing piece an agent needs. The only gap is failure behavior outside Slides files.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly adds no parameter noise and implies the call is implicitly scoped to the current presentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ("List all slides in the current Figma Slides presentation") plus an enumeration of returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like figma_get_focused_slide or figma_get_slide_content, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Only works in Slides files" is a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives (e.g. use figma_get_slide_content for the active slide's content). Usage is only implied by the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.